I'd agree with that. Shame that they're partnered with AMD, because I'm sure some dual Geforce arrangement would be pretty fine - even if it was one core for graphics and another for physics.
Don't like the idea that ARM-based - surely Intel would give them a VERY good price on something more powerful. That said, if we did have to have ARM then I was tempted to say "Tegra3" (or replacement) but that's not going to happen because of the AMD tie-in.
I'd love to see some really powerful piece of kit - but I'm pretty sure that this won't happen - mainly because of the noise factor, but also because these days folks are pretty sensitive about power draw. Hence the "need" to use ARM gear.
My hit list would be: 1080p native support with AA/AF; decent sound; multiprocessor - preferably quad; backward compatibility with games and some peripherals (e.g. Kinect).
I don't know Saracen, if I buy a HP printer on the cheap, as they tend to be, and then feed it their silly £ ink am i not subsidising the price of the printer? would i buy the ink without the printer? would i buy 360 games without a 360?
also, you keep saying things are an exchange i cant see any deeper meaning to it than there would be if you had just said that you have purchased these things, and that really does go without saying. so what is it? how does it being a money for product exchange discount the 360 creating revenue from the sale of its games and peripherals?
VodkaOriginally Posted by Ephesians
Thats not going to happen because Tegra is for very tiny boxes that don't need to be that fast, or the portable market. neither of which the next xbox or playstation will be. Discrete GPU power needed, including all the roadmapped GPGPUs that we know about.
we dont need anything fancy really, just something that is on par to the same spec of pc as the current consoles were to PCs at launch. what we need is the next gen ASAP, because the lack of grunt is not just damaging the games on the consoles, but anything that is ported to the PC is suffering.
VodkaOriginally Posted by Ephesians
It's buying the game that generates the revenue, not buying the console. I exchange money for extra, and new, games.
If you had to use Live to get the console to work at all, and had to pay for it, then the console generates revenue, just to be able to use it.
If you had to buy new games, as opposed to borrowing, renting or buying second-hand, then the console generates a revenue. The point was the comparison to the PC. If you buy a PC, you might (or might not) buy extra products or services from that supplier. You might buy Window or you might download Linux, so MS might nor might not get a revenue stream. You might or might not buy a pre-built PC, and pay that supplier for extra bits, or for support services, or you might not. You might buy games in a way that MS get revenue, or you might not.
It's no doubt more likely to generate MS a revenue stream with a tied-in console than a PC, but not certain, and it's the buying of the extra bits, which is also an exchange in that you get extra value, that generates the revenue stream.
So buy compatible inks. You are then not subsidising the price of the printer. Buy second-hand games, and you are not subsidising the XBox. Opt not to pay for Live subs and you aren't, either.
Similarly, buy a PC with an MS OS, and then decide to buy Office and you're providing a revenue stream to MS. Buy it from the PC supplier and you're providing both them and MS with revenue.
I guess in a way consoles lower the costs of hardware.
Why are PC heads all getting worked up about consoles so much now days.. PC games are a different bread to console games, it can never die.
Because we see great games changed, sometimes drastically, to cater for the primary revenue source, which is console gamers. Not all the changes are bad, but many feel they are mostly negative. It's even worse when a game that would otherwise have come out on the PC becomes a console exclusive. And we are talking areas that PCs were great for - RPGs, shooters, racing games etc.
That's not the console makers fault. It's not the console owners fault. It's not even the game developers/publishers fault - it's just a consequence of providing services for the people who are most willing to pay for them, same as any other business. PC gamers could make a difference by buying more games or being willing to pay (a lot) more for games. See the success of games where revenue is actually generated like WoW and other server based games.
Last edited by kalniel; 11-11-2011 at 04:31 PM.
i would like a console that younger than my car when it gets replaced....the 360 will be 8 when they release the rumoured new one
There's one place where I think consoles are better - racing games like Forza4, GT5. Never a big fan of the mouse or, worse still, keyboard controls. Sure you can get wheels for both, but then the only difference becomes graphics.
off topic time - when I changed printer (Canon->HP) my ink costs fell. Canon's tanks were £12-16 each, whereas the HP ones are mainly around the £8 mark, (a lot less once you factor in either Staples discount, or HP employee discount).
But why are consoles better for them? There isn't any reason apart from artificial exclusivity. Forza or GT5 on the PC would have better multiplayer, more fidelity, custom content etc. and (cf the X360) you can use any peripheral you like on them - gamepad, wheel, joystick - no being locked into only a few MS approved choices.
Sure, PC still has the best simulation racing games, but sometimes car pr0n is fun too.
rumor?
Trouble is that if someone was to do "Forza4 - GFW edition" then there'd be a chorus of disapproval because you can pretty much guarantee that it'd be a straight port, so personally I don't see the "better multiplayer" etc happening. My comment on racing on consoles being better was based purely on the few games I've tried on both - I remember being disappointed with the PC, but with hindsight maybe that was because I was expecting great things from the PC - not just a slightly enhanced port.
Actually, that's something that I've wondered about in the past - given that the XBox360 is pretty much just a PC, why aren't there more of the "exclusives" being ported after a decent interval.
And at this point I'm going to shut up, for fear of being castigated for going "off topic".
Im interested to see what the new playstation will have. I bought my 60GB origional PS3 when it was first released for a lot of money but at the time it was the cheapest bluray player available. Plus with all the updates etc to it for the hdmi support etc it was a brilliant purchase for me.
It is still my bluray player all these years on with no problems. Have never bought a game for it though. Thats what the PC is for.
Home Entertainment =Epson TW9400, Denon AVRX6300H, Panasonic DPUB450EBK 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray and Monitor Audio Silver RX 7.0, Monitor Audio CT265IDC(x4) Dolby Atmos and XTZ 12.17 Sub - (Config 7.1.4)
My System=Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi, AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, Patriot 32 GB DDR4 3200MHz, 1TB WD_Black SN770, 1TB Koxia nvme, MSI RTX4070Ti Gaming X TRIO, Enermax Supernova G6 850W, Lian LI Lancool 3, 2x QHD 27in Monitors. Denon AVR1700H & Wharfedale DX-2 5.1 Sound
Home Server 2/HTPC - Ryzen 5 3600, Asus Strix B450, 16GB Ram, EVGA GT1030 SC, 2x 2TB Cruscial SSD, Corsair TX550, Plex Server & Nvidia Shield Pro 4K
Diskstation/HTPC - Synology DS1821+ 16GB Ram - 10Gbe NIC with 45TB & Synology DS1821+ 8GB Ram - 10Gbe NIC with 14TB & Synology DS920+ 9TB
Portable=Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Huawei M5 10" & HP Omen 15 laptop
Only just bought another 360 so I'll feel mightily embarrassed if the successor is announced pretty soon.
Desktop - i7 930, XMS3 6x2GB DDR3, X58A-UD3R (rev2), 2xHD5870 1GB (CrossFireX), Crucial C300 64GB , 2x2TB WD Caviar Green, Corsair 650TX
Notebook - MacBook Pro 13" i5 Early 2011
My flickr
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)